Re: guile-lib things

[Linas Vepstas]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:31:29PM -0500, Rob Browning was heard to remark:
> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > [0] At one point, I wanted strictly taxonomic names for the
> > modules. I was wrong: code doesn't behave taxonomically, it behaves
> > in a certain quirky way depending on who wrote it / what package it
> > comes from. So while you might classify _packages_ a certain way,
> > the code often deserves to be classified under the package name
> > itself.  I'm thinking of (sxml htmlprag) here.
> 
>   That said, I tend to prefer flatter namespaces for modules when
>   there's a choice.  For example, modules like (text regexp pcre), (db
>   relational sql postgresql), or even (graphics opengl) seem
>   unnecessary and even potentially confusing to me.

Yes!  Deep taxonomies also hinder authors who are working on
new stuff, which tends to cross boundaries: if it could be easily
classified, it would be a whole lot more boring, and maybe not
worth doing ....  For example, suppose you had to classify a blog 
tool, say 5 years ago.  What category would you have put it then?  
Is slashdot a blog or a news agregator?  Who knows? 

--linas

-- 
pub  1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <address@hidden>
PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984  3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933